>> I don't propose to start with the normal syntax because it is too much
>> difficult to parse with recursive descent technology. I managed to do
>> it but thanks to hacks.
>Sounds reasonable. For people who want to learn more about
>advantages/disadvantages of LL-parsers (= recursive descent) vs.
>LALR-parsers (= ocamlyacc), see this article:
I forgot to ask, why is it necessary to move to LL? Is it the error handling, or is there something about the dynamicness of camlp4 that needs a RD parser to hook into? I'm not a compiler expert, but I've read about it the differences a bit, but I'd like the expert opinions. :)
Chris
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr